Slideshow image


Since your web browser does not support JavaScript, here is a non-JavaScript version of the image slideshow:

slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


slideshow image


Why Fact-check? Why preserve a visual record?

The Website Written as a Book
Introduction
1: Science and Subjective Viewpoints
2: Toward Accurate Collapse Histories
....2.1: Progressive Floor Collapses in the WTC Towers
....2.2: General Global Characteristics of Collapses
....2.3: Mathematical Basis of ROOSD Propagation
....2.4: WTC1 Accurate Collapse History
....2.5: WTC2 Accurate Collapse History
....2.6: WTC7 Accurate Collapse History
3: WTC Collapse Misrepresentations
....3.1: Purpose of the NIST Reports
....3.2: NIST WTC1 Misrepresentations
....3.3: NIST WTC7 Misrepresentations
....3.4: NIST WTC2 Misrepresentations
....3.5: Reviewing the Purpose of NIST and FEMA Reports
....3.6: Bazant Misrepresentation of Collapse Progressions
....3.7: Block Misrepresentations of Collapse Progressions
....3.8: AE911T Misrepresentations of the Collapses
4: Scientific Institutions Can Be Unaware of Contradiction
5: Reassessing the Question of Demolition
....5.1: The Case of WTC1
....5.2: The Case of WTC2
....5.3: The Case of WTC7
6: WTC Collapse Records Studied as Meme Replication
....6.1: Meme Replication in Technical Literature
....6.2: Meme Replication in Mass Media
....6.3: Meme Replication in Popular Culture
....6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records
Conclusions

WTC Twin Towers Collapse Dynamics

Official, Legal Attempts to Explain Collapses

Academic Attempts to Explain Collapses Reviewed

On the Limits of Science and Technology

WTC Video Record

WTC Photographic Record
WTC1 Attack to Collapse
WTC2 Attack to Collapse
WTC 7
.
-----PHOTO RECORD OF FIRE PROGRESSION-----
Fire Progression, WTC1 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC1 West Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 North Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 South Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 East Face
Fire Progression, WTC2 West Face
.
----DEBRIS LAYOUT AND CONDITION, BY REGION-----
Debris: WTC1 Around Footprint
Debris: WTC2 Around Footprint
Debris: From WTC1 Westward
Debris: From WTC1 Northward
Debris: From WTC2 Eastward
Debris: From WTC2 Southward
Debris: Plaza Area, Northeast Complex
Debris: Hilton Hotel, Southwest Complex
Debris: General, Unidentified Locations
Damage to Surrounding Buildings
Perimeter Column Photo Record
Perimeter Columns: Types of Damage
Core Box Columns: Types of Damage
Complete Photo Archive
Other Major 9-11 Photo Archives
The 911Dataset Project

WTC Structural Information

Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Online Misrepresentations of the WTC Collapses

Forum, Blog Representations of the WTC Collapses

The Book Tested Through Experiments

Miscellaneous Notes, Resources
FAQ for Miscellaneous Notes
History Commons 9/11 Timeline
The 911Dataset Project
Skyscraper Safety Campaign
First and Largest 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Key Words in Book and Website
Trapped Within a Narrowed False Choice
Vulnerability and Requestioning
On Memes and Memetics
Obedience, Conformity and Mental Structure
Denial, Avoidance (Taboo) and Mental Structure
Taboos Against Reviewing the Collapse Events
Extreme Situations and Mental Structure
Suggestibility, Hypnosis and Mental Structure
Awareness and Behavior
Magical, Religious, Scientific Cause-Effect Relations
The Extreme Limits of Mental Dysfunction
Orwell's "Crimestop", "Doublethink", "Blackwhite"
William James, Max Born: Science as Philosophy
Plato on Self Reflection and Mental Structure
Rewriting History, part 1
Rewriting History, part 2
On Smart Idiots

New Ideas in Education

Meme Replication in Popular Culture

Meme Replication in Popular Culture


Meme Replication in Popular Culture




Common WTC1 and 2 Collapse Initiation Memes



Nova and Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST, 20063.







From this interactive presentation hosted by Shyam Sunder himself:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

The section called "collapse" is where he describes it, but the whole collection of videos is quite revealing. In his own words:


In addition to the columns weakening, the floors that were in the vicinity of those faces also weakened. And as a result of that, the floors sagged. And the sagging of the floors actually helped pull the external columns inward. And caused an inward bowing of the external columns. That is captured in photographs.

What then happened after the inward bowing is there was a stage at which a critical amount of inward bowing took place, and the columns snapped. And essentially the columns, once they snapped, the inwardly-bowed columns suddenly sprung back and out. And once that happened, the top mass, that rigid mass of somewhere on the order of 10 to 20 floors just started moving downward.

And the structure below, because of the fracturing of the columns just before it, that had snapped, was unable to withstand the energy that was released.



As can be easily verified by comparing claims with the most accurate records of the collapses available in part 2, these images are cartoon-like gross mischaracterizations of actual building behavior.

If the lead investigator for the NIST, Shyam Sunder, could simply repeat unverified second-hand knowledge about the findings of his own investigation and present it as fact without being aware of it, consider how much more vulnerable journalists and ordinary citizens are to doing the same thing.






Ryan Mackey, vocal NASA employee, misrepresents both collapse progression and collapse initiation of WTC1 as late as 2011:


Ryan Mackey, a person who identifies himself as a NASA employee and "rocket scientist", describes the collapse initiation sequence of WTC1 publicly in the following terms1:




From the program 'Hardfire', linked here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDvDND9zNUk

R Mackey at 11:35 and 14:50,

We are talking 8 degrees of tilt. That is what the NIST reports. They report 7 or 8 degrees rotation about 1 axis and 2 to 3 degrees about another.



R Mackey:

"At 8 degrees rotation, this is the point at which the hinge is completely broken and the upper block will start to fall straight down....this is what we see on the video.




In part 2, the true tilt angle over which all columns had failed is measured at less than 1 degree. Ryan Mackey is basically just parroting incorrect second-hand knowledge given by the NIST and presenting it as fact. If one could tell the difference between direct observation and measurement (direct verification of all claims) and simply parroting what others say, they would be able to spot how easily so many people could be deceived about things they have the power to verify directly, but do not.

Earlier R Mackey's description of the collapse progression process was reproduced in section 3.72. It was basically a copy-paste version of the Bazant crush down, then crush up mechanics available in ASCE publications, in which the collapses of the Twin Towers are described quite literally as crushing blocks.

If NASA engineer Ryan Mackey could simply repeat unverified second-hand knowledge and present it as fact without being aware of it, consider how much more vulnerable journalists and ordinary citizens are to doing the same thing.



The NIST reports serve as a type of second-hand knowledge for most anyone reading them. After a few years of observation, it is interesting to look back and see how few people attempted to verify claims, official or other, using direct observation and testing, even though the opportunity was available. Poor fact-checking skills on the part of professional engineers and scientists led to an illusion of competent mutual consensus. Journalists were clearly helpless to to review and recheck the technical arguments presented.

In truth, most people were quite content with a diet of unverified second hand knowledge. Even though the events only lasted a short time and the aircraft impacts, collapses and resulting debris were caught on video and in photographs, there was little effort by third party sources to verify claims directly.



Gregory Urich, original creator of The 9/11 Forum, shown in the same program in 20084.





Greg Urich is not to blame for this. He simply read the NIST reports and drew it as he read it5. He never claimed otherwise.



Each of these representations shown are gross mischaracterizations of early movement. In section 2.3 the movement of the WTC1 structure during the initial column failure sequence is mapped and traced back to the earliest point of detectable movement from multiple angles. It was shown that features of the initial failure sequence can be understood as a rapid succession of 9 identifiable events occurring in the following order:

1) Deformations: Inward bowing of the south face
2) Earliest detectable creep movement of the antenna and northwest corner
3) Appearance of ~87th fl S face ejections
4) Appearance of 95th fl W face ejection
5) Visible downward movement begins: Columns fail over tilt of less than 1 degree, appearance of 98th fl ejections
6) Appearance of 77th fl W face ejections
7) Splitting of all perimeter walls: All visible upper parts fall out and over lower parts
8) Southward sliding of upper portion
9 ) Dis-integration of upper portion



The NIST descriptions of the same early movement are within section 3.2 of the book. Anybody who wishes can verify for themselves that the NIST descriptions are cartoon-like misrepresentations of building behavior. These misrepresentations are read and repeated by others such as Ryan Mackey. This repetition gives the illusion of verification and consensus of the original incorrect claims.












Common WTC1 and 2 Collapse Progression Memes

wikipedia entry on the WTC collapses:



"Total progressive collapse

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[51] In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.[51]"





New York Magazine, (linked here)

As part of their "Encyclopedia of 9/11", in an article called "Total Progressive Collapse: Why, precisely, the towers fell."

By Matthew Giles
Published Aug 27, 2011


Opening image:

Larger version here



The Towers failed, however, not because of C-4 or any other explosive but because of 'total progressive collapse,' an engineering phenomenon first identified in the late sixties after the partial destruction of a 22-story apartment complex in East London.

.....

Although the steel didn't melt, it greatly softened, and buckled; as the floors began to sag, the exterior columns were pulled inward. The combination of gravity and the downward kinetic force of the higher floors caused the floors below to successively collapse (causing the puffs of dust and debris) until they hit the ground. The top floors then collapsed on top of the already-reduced-to-rubble pile, causing further wreckage.



Just like the wikipedia entry, the towers are described literally as crushing blocks, crushing down before crushing up.



Pediaview Collapse of the World Trade Center


9/11 Myths on the subject of progressive collapse

Pediaview Collapse of the World Trade Center

Collapse of the World Trade Center, Academic Kids



Total progressive collapse

The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[51] In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground.[51]




Once again, described in terms of crushing blocks, crush down first, followed by crush up.







Wikipedia...

The description of the mechanics of the collapses was updated to the current wikipedia entry on the WTC collapses

Wikipedia 2008-2009 entry on the collapses here



NIST website





Popular Mechanics Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

gravysites technical reference page
,



Progressive Collapse: Overview and Lessons Learned

linked here










This is the statement given by Ms. Regenhard of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign in a congressional session on the NIST WTC investigation in 2005:

First of all, I just want to preface my comments with saying I often introduce myself in the way that I am basically just a little mother from the Bronx, and really, that is what I am, and I am not a technical person. However, I do have, over the last four years, you know, the input from my wonderful technical advisory panel, which represents some excellent, excellent people in the academic fields, and certainly, you know, in structural engineering, fire protection, architecture, and evacuation specialists.

So�"but to get back to your question, you know, political correctness. I have seen, and the other families of the victims have seen the aftermath of 9/11 to be somewhat definitely flavored by political correctness in many, many ways, in so many ways. But certainly, with the NIST investigation, I mean, I understand that it is a wonderful organization of scientists, and scientists are not trained to be like NYPD detectives. There is a professional and academic way that these kinds of organizations deal with one and with other entities. And you have other professional people in that investigation that should have been really interrogated, such as the Port Authority, such as their building plans. You know, the Port Authority never turned over their building plans until there was an article about it in the front page of the New York Times condemning them, or not condemning them, but accusing them of really not coming forward. That is one of the examples. People like the chief structural engineer for the first World Trade Center, you know, his work should have been investigated, because after all, he was responsible for the design of that building, and the subsequent, and yet, instead of that, he was sort of dealt with in a friendly basis, and he was actually put on the payroll to explain his plans and all that.

So, there were these very, you know, maybe because I am a layperson, I can't understand why these entities that should have been scrutinized and investigated were sort of taken in and became part of the investigation. You know, that is just one of the examples of where the families were really, really deeply concerned about that. And also, the avoidance of certain things that were not politically correct, like the avoidance of blaming anyone for anything. I mean, we all teach our children to obey the law, and to respect authority, and not to break any laws, but yet, when we have this investigation of the, I would say the needless deaths of nearly 3,000 people, no one is to be blamed. It is handled so gingerly. I mean, there is a reason why nearly 3,000 people are dead, and I feel the majority of them needlessly, but yet, the approach of these investigations is very, very tentative, and no one wants to put anyone on the line, and no one wants to look into what was the effect of the Port Authority immunities from building and fire codes?

If someone said to me what are the two major grievous examples of what went wrong on 9/11 in those buildings? I would say the two things are the Port Authority exemptions and immunities from New York City building and fire codes, and the wholesale failure of the FDNY radio communications, and the wholesale failure of the Emergency Management System of the City of New York and the Port Authority. And these are the crux of the matter. This is the bottom line. Yet, these are the issues that were, you know, skirted around and, you know, tiptoeing through the tulips, instead of�"and still, today, I have to fault both the 9/11 Commission and the NIST investigation for not taking a stand, for not saying that in our country, no building should be above the law, especially the Port Authority buildings that were the tallest and largest buildings in the world, that at that time, was built to contain the largest number of people in the world, and yet, those buildings were allowed to be exempt and immune from building and fire codes, essentially above the law, and now, we are allowing the Port Authority to do the same thing all over again.

The new World Trade Center and the memorial, and every single building down there on that property will be just as exempt and immune from every single New York City building and fire code as the first one. That is an abomination. That is a sin. That is an outrage against humanity. And you know, I am sorry to get emotional. I expected the NIST investigation and the 9/11 Commission to take a stand on that, but you know what, it is only the average Joe Q. Citizen. When we break the law, we have to pay the consequences, but when we have these huge organizations breaking the law, I feel they are not held to the same standard as an average citizen, and that hurts.


From these comments certain key words and phrases can be extracted:

politically correct
avoidance of blame
handled gingerly
no one wants to put anyone on the line
no one wants to look into...
skirted around
tiptoeing through the tulips
not taking a stand
abomination
a sin
an outrage against humanity
should have been investigated
sort of dealt with in a friendly basis



My guess is that she had no idea at the time of what we now sometimes call ROOSD or that the WTC1 collapse initiation movement described by the NIST is nothing but a popular, highly successful meme.

My research has verified that her observations hit the mark perfectly.



Within this environment there is an inability to approach the written record of the collapses in a critical way. Official = good and wise. All confusion about the collapses is believed to be due to 'truthers' or the 'ignorant laymen in the public'.

The NIST, ASCE or JEM are held responsible for....nothing.








The tangled web of the internet

There are various websites and public forums accessible through the internet and available within the public domain:

History Commons 9/11 Timeline
Skyscraper Safety Campaign


There are websites associated with individuals and groups commonly referred to as "truthers" as well as websites associated with people who attempt to "debunk" the claims made at the truther websites, such as:

9-11 Research
Scholars for 9-11 Truth and Justice
Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth
Chris Sarns
Scholars for 911 Truth
Gravysites
9/11myths
Debunk911
Gordon Ross Website and Review
9/11truth.org
Consensus Panel 9/11
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
Journal of 9-11 Studies


There is quite a lot of confusion and contradictory claims made within these websites.


There are forums available and blog records on the WTC collapses, such as:

The 9/11 Forum
Loose Change Forum
9-11 Blogger

911TruthAction.org forum
Abovetopsecret 9/11 Forum
Letsroll 9/11 Forum
JREF 9/11 Forum
9/11, 7/7 Forum
Phys.org Forum
Pumpitout 9-11 Forum
Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum
CIT Forum


The same confusion is clearly visible and documented within comments and threads within these forums.






On to part 6.4: John Q Public and the WTC Collapse Records

Created on 09/27/2014 05:25 AM by admin
Updated on 11/22/2014 05:55 AM by admin
 Printable Version

Copyright © 2008 WiredTech, LLC
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL